American Politics

[EihTooms]

What does January 2021 have to do with anything you? We were in a pandemic. Demand was down and drilling was down.

Typical dumb Dem. You were caught bullshitting and want to change the topic. You are never wrong about anything even when it comes to numbers. LOL.

January 2021 is when Trump's horrific 2018,2019 and 2020 economic stewardship had reached its ultimate and inevitable horrific results in every element of the economy; business failures, jobs destruction, supply-chain collapses, plunging values across the board, including gas prices due to no where to drive, very little trucking going on and no interest in drilling more oil nobody can buy.

And just in time for the typical outgoing Repub hand off to the incoming Dem.

The Dem recovery from these typical Repub economic disasters, even a historically Great one like Biden's, is always always always more complicated and difficult than whatever the outgoing Repub found to destroy the economy and wipe out millions upon millions of jobs before he gets kicked out.

In Trump's case, what he found and acted on was a way to lay the groundwork for and ensure the development of Trump's Pandemic and all of it variants and economic fall out ever since.

Biden's 60%+ increase in USA oil drilling within just one year since that most horrific of all horrific Repub to Dem hand offs is a remarkable positive achievement.

LOL. You only wanted to count Trump's only good year, 2017, when he did absolutely nothing but coast on the historically positive economic trajectories he inherited from Obama-Biden and then abruptly stop noticing anything at less than half of his 4 year term.

Which of course is conveniently before all his shit legislation, crap stewarship and historic disastrous 2018,2019 and 2020 decisions came to full bloom. LOL. Nice try. But, as usual for your side, pathetic.

[EihTooms]

"The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. " - Joe Biden on Apr 20,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1252389082723790850).

"Here's my promise to you: If I'm elected president, I will always choose to unite rather than divide. I'll take responsibility instead of blaming others. I'll never forget that the job isn't about me it's about you. " - Joe Biden on Aug 16,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1295133234637025284).

"Putin's Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world," Biden said earlier this month. "High gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. ".

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ex-cpi-in-may/).

Let the expert comments (and blaming Trump and others) start. LOL.

It is such a shame that Biden would point out the real reason gas prices spiked instead of admitting it is because he simply refuses to wave his magic wand to reduce them by 50% or more tomorrow like his critics insist he should do.

LOL. Pathetic try.

[PVMonger]

"If you take 2 million cell phones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition, you will find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," Barr said.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter horse shit. Use any app like google maps or Uber and it will pinpoint your location to within feet. Now the question is how accurate does it have to be. Let us say it is only good to within 100 feet. So someone who just so happened to have visited a place that had ballots earlier, just so happened to be within 100 feet of 10 ballot boxes at between 1 and 4 AM.

And how many other times have we heard you Dems blow off something as conspiracy theory with Trump and it turn out to be true? He was being spied on during his campaign? That was a conspiracy theory right? Yeah, that turned out to be true.

That's what Rudy said. "We have theories but we don't have any evidence."

So Barr's analysis is bullshit because? Why? See that's the thing with you rigthtwingnuts. You have no evidence but you know that you're right. Rudy Giuliani said they had no evidence (to the AZ Secretary of State) but you somehow believe that he's wrong and you're right. Raffensberger said today that all of the claims that Cheeto Tweeto made were investigated and found to be BS. But according to you, those claims were accurate. These were RethugliKKKans who wanted Donnie the Dumbass to win.

Barr said, in addition to the quote above, that Di Sousa told him they had "lots of video" but he never provided any. To anybody. That's what this whole thing boils down to. Hair Furor and his merry band of idiots make all kinds of claims (which the cult believes) but they never provide any evidence because they don't have any.

The Mango Mussolini was spied upon? Care to provide proof? Because the guy that Durham interviewed said that it was all BS, that it happened while he was investigating something else.

And why do you rightwingnuts keep moving the goalposts. You said that the "circumstantial evidence" provided during Donnie's first impeachment trial was bogus simply because it was circumstantial. Now, you're saying that circumstantial is OK? Really? Why don't you just come right out and say what you mean?

So, let me ask a hypothetical question. You wake up one morning and find a pile of what appears to be horse manure in your front yard. You call all of your neighbors but nobody saw anything. You call every farmer and rancher around and one guy said that, yes, he found that his paddock gate was open that morning but all of his horses were there. So, there is only the pile of horse manure on your lawn but since nobody saw anything, the evidence that a horse did it is circumstantial. Did a horse crap on your lawn? If you say yes, then there was plenty of evidence that the Orange Buffoon should have been found guilty in his first impeachment trial. If you say no, how did the horse manure get there?

Your own two eyes? You are blind, so your own two eyes are useless. And Uber has your fucking address! Sheesh.

[DramaFree11]

"The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. " - Joe Biden on Apr 20,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1252389082723790850).

"Here's my promise to you: If I'm elected president, I will always choose to unite rather than divide. I'll take responsibility instead of blaming others. I'll never forget that the job isn't about me it's about you. " - Joe Biden on Aug 16,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1295133234637025284).

"Putin's Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world," Biden said earlier this month. "High gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. ".

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ex-cpi-in-may/).

Let the expert comments (and blaming Trump and others) start. LOL.

Exactly, and this has little to do with war. It is terrible leadership and even policies.

[Gino02]

"The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. " - Joe Biden on Apr 20,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1252389082723790850).

"Here's my promise to you: If I'm elected president, I will always choose to unite rather than divide. I'll take responsibility instead of blaming others. I'll never forget that the job isn't about me it's about you. " - Joe Biden on Aug 16,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1295133234637025284).

"Putin's Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world," Biden said earlier this month. "High gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. ".

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ex-cpi-in-may/).

Let the expert comments (and blaming Trump and others) start. LOL.

[PVMonger]

Glad you managed to figure out how to use Google and you even found the hierarchy pyramid. Way to go!

So you see that expert opinion is bottom rung. So where does that leave non-expert opinion? Not even on the ladder, right? So you see that non-expert opinion is not important, so you cannot discount the opinion of non-experts when you choose to dismiss evidence. Bcos it has no weight in the first place.

"You probably. " - great. You read me like an open book. I am so transparent.

No defense on providing an incorrect search topic? Probably because you thought that nobody would bother to research your blather.

No defense on your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (that's Latin by the way) usage of one thing (Hierarchy of Evidence) to "prove" something completely unrelated.

No defense about anything, really. Just BS trying to make yourself look good to the audience of rightwingnut idiots.

[JustTK]

First off, I googled "The hierarchy of information". A randomized, controlled trial is more valuable than expert opinion. Of course, the key word in "expert opinion" is opinion not expert.
So, while you are correct that there are other things more important than "expert opinion", your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" linking to the "Hierarchy of Evidence" is fallacious.
You probably say that the film "2000 Mules" is compelling evidence of voter fraud and Bill Barr's characterization of it as "singularly unimpressive" is somehow incorrect.
Or some other poster's constant posting of propaganda from Russian News sources or rightwingnut media as "compelling" while discounting virtually anything from centrist news sources as "fake news".

Glad you managed to figure out how to use Google and you even found the hierarchy pyramid. Way to go!

So you see that expert opinion is bottom rung. So where does that leave non-expert opinion? Not even on the ladder, right? So you see that non-expert opinion is not important, so you cannot discount the opinion of non-experts when you choose to dismiss evidence. Bcos it has no weight in the first place.

"You probably. " - great. You read me like an open book. I am so transparent.

[Elvis 2008]

Early January 2019 is the latest you can find for Trump? As I recall, he was a so-called potus right up until America kicked him out of office on January 20, 2021.

Got anything for what was happening under Trump in January 2021?

What does January 2021 have to do with anything you? We were in a pandemic. Demand was down and drilling was down.

Typical dumb Dem. You were caught bullshitting and want to change the topic. You are never wrong about anything even when it comes to numbers. LOL.

[Elvis 2008]

It seems that all you look at is "evidence" that you deem as "compelling". You probably say that the film "2000 Mules" is compelling evidence of voter fraud and Bill Barr's characterization of it as "singularly unimpressive" is somehow incorrect. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checkin...s-voter-fraud/.

"If you take 2 million cell phones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition, you will find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," Barr said.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter horse shit. Use any app like google maps or Uber and it will pinpoint your location to within feet. Now the question is how accurate does it have to be. Let us say it is only good to within 100 feet. So someone who just so happened to have visited a place that had ballots earlier, just so happened to be within 100 feet of 10 ballot boxes at between 1 and 4 AM.

And how many other times have we heard you Dems blow off something as conspiracy theory with Trump and it turn out to be true? He was being spied on during his campaign? That was a conspiracy theory right? Yeah, that turned out to be true.

How about everything in the Steele dossier? All you Dems lined up and believed every word in that. How did that turn out? You totally bought the pee story didn't you PVM? Well, what happened with that?

Yeah, everyone around Trump wanted him to blow off the claim the election was stolen but he had already been through all this BS before and as far as I am concerned, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. That a bunch of judges did not even want people who engaged in incredibly suspicious behavior to be deposed is outrageous.

What none of you Dems want to talk about is what led up to 1-6. After the Ukrainegate, Russiagate, spying on Trump, and Hilary trying to steal an election, you want us to forget all that shit and buy that 1-6 was totally unjustified. Sorry, we do not, and we do not accept judges who blew off all the circumstantial evidence.

So yeah, there is a much superior source then double blind studies, your own two fucking eyes. Shit, I have used Uber hundreds of times and rarely had a problem with Uber getting my location wrong. Imagine that.

[Gino02]

How about we do a poll here on this thread. Given what we know today who thinks "Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden". No explanation or TLDR essays please, just simple "YES / NO / Not sure" opinion poll for readers and writers in this thread. We can close the poll on next Sunday June 26th, and tally up the results. I will go first.

"Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden".

YES. Gino02.

Guys, thanks to those of you who already voted, and thanks in advance to those who will vote. We will tally up the results on Monday June 27th. We all have our opinions and very unlikely any of us will change our position at this point, but will be great to know our collective mongers' preference of POTUS.

Please vote by Sunday June 26th:

"Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden" - YES / NO / Not sure.

[Gino02]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...omy/ar-AAYHMZp

In two new polls depressing the White House today, one put his approval rating at a career low of 32% and another rejected the president's finger-pointing on the economy.

The latest Civiqs (https://civiqs.com/results/approve_p...ue&zoomIn=true) approval rating hit 32% with 56% disapproving of the president. Even Democrats are expressing frustration, with their approval rate at a low 69%, said the data.

At this stage of his presidency, Donald Trump was in better shape though also underwater with voters in the same Civiqs survey at 44% approval, 52% disapproval, numbers he rarely broke from.

Recent president have all had very temporary low approval ratings below 30%, according to Gallup, but they didn't stay there. Biden's trend line, however, has been steadily down in the Civiqs survey since May 20, 2021.

Driving Biden's disapprovals has been the public's dissatisfaction with the economy, surging gas prices and unending and spiking inflation.

The latest Rasmussen Reports (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...oor_on_economy) survey of likely voters found that just 27% were good with Biden's handling of the economy. Some 71% said his handling was fair to poor.

And when asked who they blame for the poor economy, a majority said Biden, not the many targets of his finger pointing including Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some 52% blamed Biden for high gas prices, for example, but just 11% Putin.

Maybe worst of all for Biden as he braces for the congressional midterm elections, 74% of voters told Rasmussen that the economy has "gotten. Worse" under the Democratic president.

https://civiqs.com/faq

Civiqs, based in Oakland California, is a polling and data analytics firm that conducts public opinion research online. Since 2013, Civiqs has fielded over two million scientific research surveys, and collected more than thirty million responses to survey questions.

Now, let's blame Trump for all of Biden's failures. But if Biden was successful, those wouldn't have been from Trump's good work. LOL.

[ScatManDoo]

First off, I googled "The hierarchy of information". What I saw was a bunch of stuff related to how information was displayed on a page. https://www.bridgewaterlearning.co.z...f-information/#text=The%20 hierarchy%20 of%20 information%20 is,(either%20 ascending%20 or%20 descending). And https://taylorhieber.co/hierarchy-of...als-of-design/.

I then googled "hierarchy of information expert opinion". One of the entries pointed me to a link entitled "Hierarchy of Evidence". It was on that link, and others, that I found the information you were blathering about.

So, it seems that you provided us with an incorrect search topic. But we all know that you do that. Constantly.

Second, since "Hierarchy of Evidence" was what you were blathering about, I read several articles on the topic. What I found was that "Hierarchy of Evidence" relates to scientific studies and mostly (but not always) those studies are medically related. https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721.

"Hierarchy of Evidence" says absolutely nothing about the "source of anything" other than indirectly. What it deals with is ranking studies as to their value based upon how they've been reviewed. Therefore, a scientific study that has been peer reviewed is "more valuable" than one that has not. A randomized, controlled trial is more valuable than expert opinion. Of course, the key word in "expert opinion" is opinion not expert..

Yeah.

What he says.

[PVMonger]

Explain that argument to me please. If information is compelling, why does the source of that information matter? Compelling information stand, no matter the source, right?

Go check out 'The hierarchy of information' - you will see that 'expert opinion' is the bottom rung when assessing the validity of information. So logicians accept that there are many better methods to assess the validity information than considering the source of that infiormation. I am not making this stuff up. This is accepted science.

And that is the scientific view of 'source". Spelling mistakes do not even make it on to the bottom rung of the 'The hierarchy of information'.

So please do, explain to me why the science behind the 'The hierarchy of information' is wrong and that you know better than everyone else.

First off, I googled "The hierarchy of information". What I saw was a bunch of stuff related to how information was displayed on a page. https://www.bridgewaterlearning.co.z...f-information/#text=The%20 hierarchy%20 of%20 information%20 is,(either%20 ascending%20 or%20 descending). And https://taylorhieber.co/hierarchy-of...als-of-design/.

I then googled "hierarchy of information expert opinion". One of the entries pointed me to a link entitled "Hierarchy of Evidence". It was on that link, and others, that I found the information you were blathering about.

So, it seems that you provided us with an incorrect search topic. But we all know that you do that. Constantly.

Second, since "Hierarchy of Evidence" was what you were blathering about, I read several articles on the topic. What I found was that "Hierarchy of Evidence" relates to scientific studies and mostly (but not always) those studies are medically related. https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721.

"Hierarchy of Evidence" says absolutely nothing about the "source of anything" other than indirectly. What it deals with is ranking studies as to their value based upon how they've been reviewed. Therefore, a scientific study that has been peer reviewed is "more valuable" than one that has not. A randomized, controlled trial is more valuable than expert opinion. Of course, the key word in "expert opinion" is opinion not expert.

What you have done is to take a principle related to one thing, and say that is really about something else. You have ignored (as is typical) the fact that the "Hierarchy of Evidence" pyramid consists of 7 levels (starting at the top and working the way down) 1. Systematic reviews, 2. Critically appraised topics, 3. Critically appraised individual articles, 4. Randomized controlled trials, 5. Cohort studies, 6. Case controlled studies, and 7. Background information / expert opinion.

So, to answer the question you posed "If information is compelling, why does the source of that information matter? Compelling information stand, no matter the source, right? What you asked can not be answered within the framework of the "Hierarchy of Evidence". One of the reasons is that the "compelling information" as you put it has not been validated by the upper 6 levels of the "Hierarchy of Evidence" pyramid. There are no reviews of the "compelling evidence". Nothing has been critically appraised. There have been no randomized controlled trials. In fact, there is nothing.

So, while you are correct that there are other things more important than "expert opinion", your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" linking to the "Hierarchy of Evidence" is fallacious.

And, in your worldview, a "Systematic Review" of a topic that is filled with misspellings is a much better source of information (or "information" as you term it) than a lower-level source that is rigorously written. Blather.

It seems that all you look at is "evidence" that you deem as "compelling". You probably say that the film "2000 Mules" is compelling evidence of voter fraud and Bill Barr's characterization of it as "singularly unimpressive" is somehow incorrect. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checkin...s-voter-fraud/.

Or some other poster's constant posting of propaganda from Russian News sources or rightwingnut media as "compelling" while discounting virtually anything from centrist news sources as "fake news".

[EihTooms]

Sigh. 2014 under Obama, https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2014, peak was 1931, week of 9-19-14.

2019 under Trump, 1/4/19, peak was 1075. https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2019.

Current rig peak under Biden, current, 740. https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2022.

In 2021, rig count high was 586.

And you are bragging about all the oil drilling under Biden? Hey, dummy, which is the most: 1931 or 1075 or 740? Well, if you are a dumb Dem, it is whatever number wants to be the most right?

What next you dumb Dem? The source not right? Or maybe you have an "expert" who can dispute, you know something like "the rate of increase in rigs is growing under Biden whereas it was falling under Trump. " Yeah, let us just ignore the pandemic and let you and the "experts" cherry pick numbers.

Early January 2019 is the latest you can find for Trump? As I recall, he was a so-called potus right up until America kicked him out of office on January 20, 2021.

Got anything for what was happening under Trump in January 2021?

[Paulie97]

Sure, but let's require a practical "Voter Identification" before we can count your vote. You folks love "Voter Identification", right?

A fishing or hunting license will suffice.